NTAC Peering Working Group

[Cort Buffington <>]

Jeff, et. al.,

I'll put in one vote for the Foundry/Brocade NetIron XMR. KanREN has  
been using XMR4000s on our backbone for two years. We've been very  
pleased. We've found the XMR to be small, efficient (heat and power)  
and extremely reliable. We fork-lifted Cisco 7600 series to put in the  
XMRs. There hasn't been a single day that I have questioned the  
decision. Bandwidth throughput and scalability is better, reliability  
has been better... And they cost roughly 1/3 of what we were paying  
for 7600s. They just plain work. The tradeoff is that we don't have  
the really whacked-out nerd knobs we see in Juniper -- BUT if basic to  
intermediate functions are what you're after, the XMR is great. We run  
IPv4 unicast and multicast and a production IPv6 environment -- no  
issues. MSDP was a bit weak when we first bought them, but software  
has beefed it up and we are now happy.

I cannot express how much happier we have been with them over the  
7600s. Now, if we had the money, I'm sure we'd probably be running  
Juniper MX series, but really, we don't need the MX's extra features  
in the backbone (or price). I don't work for Brocade/Foundry, nor do I  
even take free lunches from them, but I am REALLY happy with their  
product.

Regards,
Cort

On Jun 2, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Jeff Bartig wrote:

> Peering Working Group Members,
>
> Internet2 is seeking input from the community on potential hardware
> purchases to prepare CPS for the Fall semester.  CPS will be expanding
> into the Equinix-Ashburn exchange and increasing capacity at several
> existing exchange locations.  Internet2 staff have been working
> closely with Transit Rail staff to ensure that these efforts are
> compatible with the goal of consolidating CPS and Transit Rail.
>
> For the Fall semester, Internet2 would like to purchase routers to
> locate at one or more of the exchange points.  These routers will
> need to perform basic layer 3 functions for IPv4/IPv6 and
> unicast/multicast.  Initially, these routers would be integrated
> into the Internet2 network, but could later form the backbone for
> a consolidated CPS/TransitRail service.  The team working on this
> effort want to ensure that a good selection is being made that will
> both meet the short-term CPS goals for Fall and longer-term
> consolidation goals.
>
> The initial configurations being considered vary by deployment
> location.  They range between 7 and 12 10GE interfaces and as many
> as 22 GigE SFP ports.  The team is currently considering the Cisco
> 7609, Foundry XMR, and Juniper MX480/960.
>
> If you have experience with these platforms, the CPS/TransitRail
> team would appreciate any feedback you can provide.  Do these
> platforms have any weaknesses that would concern you if they were
> used as a peering router?  Do any of these platforms have strengths
> that you feel make them a better choice?
>
> The team is working quickly to come to a purchase decision soon,
> so the hardware can be ordered in time for a pre-Fall semester
> installation.  We would like to have all feedback received by June,
> 9, 2009.  Feedback can be shared on the NTAC Peering WG mailing
> list 
> ().
>   If you would like to provide
> feedback privately, feel free to respond to me directly.  I will
> collect the feedback and share it with CPS/TransitRail staff.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Jeff Bartig
> Chair NTAC Peering Working Group
>
>
> --
> Jeff Bartig                  |  University of Wisconsin - Madison
>
>           |  Division of Information Technology
> (608) 262-8336               |  Network Services/WAN Engineering/ 
> WiscNet
> GTalk/AIM/Yahoo: jbartig     |

--
Cort Buffington
Executive Director
The Kansas Research and Education Network

Office: +1-785-856-9800 x301
Mobile: +1-785-865-7206